Debates of June 21st, 1994

Excise Tax Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

Department Of Citizenship And Immigration Act

[Fernand Robichaud, Liberal, Secretary of State (Parliamentary Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that an agreement has been reached pursuant to Standing Order 78(2)

with regard to the allocation of time to third reading stage of Bill C-35. Therefore I move:

That in relation to Bill C-35, an act to establish the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and to make consequential amendments to other acts, not more than one hour shall be allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the said bill, and at the expiry of that hour, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the third reading stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successfully without further debate or amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the motion.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-34, an act respecting self-government for First Nations in the Yukon Territory, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There has been quite a change in the scenery over the last hour with four closure motions being passed. It lends some doubt as to what the intention of the government is in the order of bills we have brought forward. I wonder if the government would bring forward some type of statement as to the bills it plans to bring forward and the order in which it intends to consider them.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I wonder if I might ask the assistance of the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the hon. member we will be calling this evening Bill C-34 for report stage, then Bill C-33 for report stage, one hour on each. Then we will proceed I believe with Bill C-32 unless discussions between the parties result in some other arrangement. I believe that will be the order for this evening which should take us to ten o'clock.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in light of the events and an hon. member calls it a disaster, I would move that this House do now adjourn.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Members cannot move adjournment on a point of order, but only in fact when they rightfully have the floor on debate.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

There are three amendment motions listed in the Notice Paper regarding the report stage of Bill C-34, an Act respecting self-government for first nations in the Yukon Territory.

Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon separately.

Motion No. 2 will be debated and voted upon separately.

Motion No. 3 will be debated and voted upon separately.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-34, in Clause 5, be amended, by striking out lines 40 to 45 on page 3 and lines 1 to 4, on page 4.

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Before I can propose the motion for adjournment, the hon. member will have to submit the motion in writing to the chair and include a seconder of the motion.

The motion for adjournment is ruled out of order. The hon. member for Athabasca, in moving the motion for adjournment, cannot move an amendment to his own motion which would have the effect of superseding his motion if passed.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to voice my disappointment and concern over the process that just took place. How can we expect to believe the provisions of the bill if the drafter of the bill and the supporters of the bill would put us through a process of not allowing us to debate the amendments and bills fully and properly?

The amendments we are putting forth would have had some impact on our decision whether or not to support the bill at third reading. Having been through a process which I believe is a real abuse of the parliamentary process, I do not hold out real hope for the success of the agreements these bills bring into effect.

Even more so, it goes to emphasize the serious concerns we are raising in the amendments we are bringing forward. The first amendment to clause 5(2) has the effect of removing from the agreement those 10 First Nations that have not yet signed final agreements.

Those 10 First Nations would be the Carcross-Tagish First Nation, the Dawson First Nation, the Kluane First Nation, the Kwanlin Dun First Nation, the Liard First Nation, the Little Salmon-Carmacks First Nation, the Ross River Dena Council, the Selkirk First Nation, the Ta'an Kwach'an Council, and the White River First Nation.

Those First Nations, as well as the four First Nations covered by this agreement, should have genuine concern with the process. We are abolishing the designation of an aboriginal band in this piece of legislation and replacing it with an organization called a first nation.

Under the Indian Act and under present legislation the rights of aboriginal peoples are protected as Indian bands. Until the

bill becomes legislation and has royal assent the 10 First Nations are in limbo. They have lost their rights as aboriginal bands and have not yet attained rights as First Nations. If I were a member of one of these bands I would be certainly concerned with situation. The whole process calls into question what we are trying to achieve.

If I were a member of one of those First Nations I would have seriously considered the situation before being willing to sell my rights as an aboriginal person for the few dollars being provided here. Certainly there are legal questions and legal concerns about where this process leaves the aboriginal rights afforded to aboriginals through the treaty process, through the Indian Act and legislation that has gone before.

Through a simple amendment to the legislation before us in the bill those First Nations could lose their aboriginal rights and they could be extinguished in that process. Not only do I believe these things, but I have been contacted by a number of First Nations groups that also have the problem. Even a number of the groups that have yet to sign on with final agreements covered under the umbrella agreement have those concerns, particularly the extinguishment of the right of the tax exempt status. That should be of great concern.

Further to that the 10 nations that have not signed on will not come before Parliament to be examined, to be evaluated and to be discussed. Where does it leave us as members of Parliament when we abdicate our responsibility as a Parliament to examine legislation before it and delegate that authority to the governor in council?

If there is nothing different in the next 10 agreements why are they not signed on as final agreements at this point? If there are different provisions in the 10 agreements why should not Parliament have a chance to examine these differences, to debate them and to discuss them? If we as parliamentarians do not need to examine the 10 future agreements why are we going through the somewhat convoluted process of examining the four that are there?

There are some very serious questions to be answered. I hoped we could have had support for this amendment as well as the other two amendments that we proposed. Clearly that is not to be. We are not to have serious discussion and serious debate on the issues. That saddens me truly for Canada's parliamentary process, for Canada's people, and for Canada's aboriginal people. It is a sad day for the process.

[Jack Iyerak Anawak, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

It is a pleasure to be able to finally speak to the issue. There is such concern from the party for aboriginal people what can I say? It is from the same party that thinks we are giving away large tracts of land to the aboriginal people and that we are giving away large amounts of money to the aboriginal people. All of a sudden there is all this concern for the poor aboriginal people. We have to be consistent when we are talking about whether we are supporting aboriginal people or whether we are against the process they are trying to go through.

Before I comment on the amendment I received a letter attached to the Toronto Sun about the member from the Reform Party apologizing for depicting us as spoiled or denying depicting us as spoiled. The letter quite clearly follows the lines of the attitude of the Reform Party. It says: ``Hey, Jack, if it is any consolation we also think our natives are a bunch of lazy, drunken layabouts who have been fleecing we hardworking fed up taxpayers for too long. Cut all the federal money they get and make them, the whole lot of them, work for their keep. Let's see if they can make it on their own, but I doubt it''.

This letter shows the ignorance of some Canadian people. Who do they think the land came from? Whose land does this person think it is? That letter is ridiculous. It basically follows the lines of the remarks made in the House by a member of the Reform Party.

The Reform's amendment would delete subclauses 5(2) and (3). Subclause 5(1) brings into effect the self-government agreements of the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations, the First Nation of Nacho Hyak Dun, the Teslin Tlingit Council, and the Vuntut Gwitch'in First Nation on the day this act comes into force. That is subclause (1).

Subclause (2), which they would delete, provides that the remaining 10 First Nations self-government agreements may be brought into effect by order in council.

Subclause (3), another one they would delete, ensures that the effective date of a self-government agreement will be published in the Canada Gazette .

The Reform's amendment would delete subclauses (2) and (3) of clause 5 so that each of the remaining 10 First Nations self-government agreements would have to be brought into effect by other acts of Parliament. The proposed amendment would also move the requirement by the minister to publish the effective date of these self-government agreements.

Motion No. 1 is unacceptable because, one, the process of bringing the subsequent 10 self government agreements into effect should be the same as the process used to bring the land claims agreement into effect. This clause mirrors a clause in Bill C-33. The amendment would create inconsistent processes and

would defeat the intention in the land claims agreement to allow for orders in council to bring future agreements into effect.

Two, clause 5 does not prevent Parliament from reviewing any future agreements.

Three, this bill establishes the parameters of the subsequent 10 self-government agreements. These parameters cannot be exceeded in the negotiation of the subsequent 10 self-government agreements.

For all the reasons I just cited, the government finds Motion no. 1 unacceptable.

[John Duncan, Reform, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 1 talks about deleting clause 5 of Bill C-34. This provision in the bill speaks volumes about the Liberal government commitment to governing with integrity. We have seen that again in spades tonight.

I quote from its famous red ink book: "People are irritated with governments that do not consult them or disregard their views or that try to conduct key parts of the public business behind closed doors. Open government will be the watchword of the Liberal program".

This is not my main beef. My main beef is that this bill displays a serious lack of parliamentary accountability and scrutiny. It is a blank cheque for the government through order in council to make or ratify all future agreements in Yukon.

In our view, Parliament has a responsibility to the people of Canada to carefully consider and pass judgment on any initiative within its legislative agenda, but particularly in matters as important as aboriginal self-government. Self-government is a critical policy initiative which deserves the highest level of care that Parliament can muster. As I noted earlier, this would be evident to any impartial observer.

The legislative journey of Bill C-34 appears to involve undue haste for even a conventional piece of legislation. However, this bill is anything but conventional. It is extraordinary because in it Parliament delegates its fundamental responsibilities to the executive and bureaucratic branches of government. This delegation takes place in the context of critically important questions of what place will our aboriginal nations take within our federal state.

Parliament is being asked to breach its constitutional role in and responsibility to enact legislation in the public forum of Parliament. What is being sought is approval for a process legislatively to which the Government of Canada and its bureaucrats in negotiation with First Nations developed fundamental legislation in private. Thus, what Parliament is being asked to do and do extraordinarily quickly is engage in radical constitutional irresponsibility.

With respect to the 10 bands which have not yet entered into self-government and have not negotiated final agreements and transboundary agreements, let us remember that these agreements are integral parts of this legislative package. Parliament is being asked to approve legislation it has not seen and will never see. Not only do these agreements I just mentioned have the status of legislation, but according to the act they enjoy paramountcy over the self-government act. Even the existing agreements which are part of this package can in the future be amended in very fundamental ways.

Truly astonishing, anti-democratic and totally unconventional, the legislation provides that the self-government agreement and amendments thereto may go beyond the subject areas dealt with by the act. These agreements can be brought into effect upon the coming into force of the act. This gives the self-government agreement some legislative status. As long as there is no conflict between Bill C-34 and the provisions in the self-government agreement, these provisions are valid.

Moreover, they can be brought into force without the scrutiny and indeed even the knowledge of Parliament as law by the governor in council making orders and regulations to implement self-government.

This time allocation has placed me in a situation where I have a lot of information I cannot get.

I want to speak to Motion No. 2.

Existing clause 9, the delegation provision is such that a First Nation can delegate its law-making power-